Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 June 19



Image:1198765633535.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No reason why the uploader would have the rights to the image (was used for deleted article Miu ! and copyright probably belongs with game publisher) and is still orphaned an UE. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:Roman Military Immunes.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as I9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned and no indication the uploader has the right license. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Tagged as CSD I9 as a copyright violation of source website, source website dkimages is a commercial photograph site. MilborneOne (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleted as copyvio. Thanks-- Kubigula (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Images by User:Bfalexander

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: deleted Skier Dude  ( talk ) 01:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC) I suspect the following images may not have been taken the uploader, who has had other issues with copyright violations and incorrect licenses for other people's work, particularly from Flickr. At least one of these images is watermarked, and the others have no metadata and are at web resolution, making them suspicious.
 * Image:170650019 fb14578f63.jpg
 * Image:Strypershow.jpg
 * Image:NoahHenson.jpg
 * Image:Robbeckly.jpg
 * Image:Michaelofpillar.jpg
 * Image:LesterEstelle.jpg

Kelly hi! 03:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:Corey_Taylor_slipknot.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Flickr source is dead, but I suspect this was likely copyvio at the Flickr source when uploaded. Kelly hi! 04:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:Nebelwerfer-attacking.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: kept with license updated Skier Dude  ( talk ) 01:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Listed as GFDL but no indication that the author (perhaps the "Laurier Centre for Military Strategic and Disarmament Studies") has actually released the image as GFDL. Also orphaned currently. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, license has been fixed but still orphaned. Recommend closing and copying to Commons. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:Eclectic dreams Screenshot.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as G6 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No evidence that uploader is the copyright holder Stifle (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:I-dee.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as G6 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No evidence that uploader is the copyright holder Stifle (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Multiple images uploaded by User:Stavros1 with PD-self or GFDL licensing

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: 2 kept with license updated, others deleted Skier Dude  ( talk ) 01:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC) These are mostly images of UK road signs, which are covered by Crown Copyright. Some of them contain other logos (e.g., Image:RSPB UK Brown sign.png), and some are copies of copyrighted logos (Image:NT Logo.png and Image:NORTH NORFOLK LOGO.png). I've tagged a few of these as but I don't have time to go through them all. I've left a note on the uploader's talk page. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊  12:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:NT Logo.png
 * Image:NORTH NORFOLK LOGO.png
 * Image:Lorry UK Sign.png
 * Image:WINDMILL UK Brown.png
 * Image:RSPB UK Brown sign.png
 * Image:FLOWER GARDEN UK Brown sign.png
 * Image:BEACH UK Brown sign.png
 * Image:HEAVY HORSE UK Sign.png
 * Image:STEAM RAILWAY UK Sign.png
 * Image:ENGLISH HERITAGE UK Road.png
 * Image:Tourist Watermill Brown.png
 * Image:Tourist House Brown.png
 * Image:Roundabout Ahead.png
 * Image:Traffic Camera.png
 * Image:Speed Camera Sign.png
 * Image:Stately Home Brown Sign.png


 * Comment - I didn't look at all of these, but it looks like a lot of the road signs would be PD-ineligible, as they are just text on a colored background. Kelly  hi! 13:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The document Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 starts off with a long preamble about copyright. This applies to the whole of the legistation, including primary route markings, even if they do just consist of text on a coloured background. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊  15:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't doubt that they may make a blanket copyright claim - my point is that such a claim would be invalid. Things like text and basic shapes can't be copyrighted. Kelly  hi! 15:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I've struck out the PD-ineligible ones. If you have time, please check over the remaining ones. Thanks! -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊  18:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've checked through each of these - it appears that all of them now have a fair-use rationale, are listed as crown copyright or are ineligible for copyright. This list should now be resolved.  Shell    babelfish 09:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:Montage Cold War.png

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

''Image contains a fair use image. Not cc. Unfree.'' Megapixie (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:81x3mlh7.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No image source information--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Source is (same size and file name) but it may be an Associated Press image but almost certainly a copyvio. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:Genpact india gurgaon.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"Promotional image from the company available to the public" doesn't mean PD. ViperSnake151 15:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:4D_rubiks_cube.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No evidence that the uploader has the authority to release this software screenshot as PD.  howcheng  {chat} 17:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The sites licencing notice reads;
 * We don't much care what you do with MagicCube4D. We simply hope you enjoy it and would love your feedback. Give it to your friends, post it on the net, whatever you like. We only require that if you want to use it for some commercial purpose such as adding it to a game pack, or using it as a demo to help sell your product, that you get our written approval first. Feel free to link to this page to always have access to the current versions.


 * The invitation to freely post on the net (without a requirement to append the original licence) can be read as freedom to post on Wikipedia under a GFDL. The spirit of the commercial use restriction is a restriction on the use of the software and source code.  Since the posting on Wikipedia is a screen shot only, and the software can be viewed as an "art creation" package, this restriction is not relevant to the image.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  00:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But the paragraph above that one says:
 * “You are free to use and modify the code for non-commercial purposes as long as obvious credit for the source of the code and the designs it embodies are clearly made, and ports and derived versions of 4D Magic Cube programs are not distributed without the express written permission of the authors.”
 * Derivatives are neither commercially usable nor distributable.
 * --AVRS (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That para is clearly talking about source code (it is under the heading "Source Code") and does not in any sense apply to the executable program or its outputs. It is clearly not the intention of Superliminal to restrict in any way images created with the program.   Sp in ni  ng  Spark  14:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This image is also on. -- Ned Scott 08:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:FidelandSaddam.jpeg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as I9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That is obviously not the original source of the image, and so until the original source (and so licensing) of the image can be located, we should not be using it. J Milburn (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The metadata says it is a Getty Image - almost certainly a copyvio. MilborneOne (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleted as copyvio. Kevin (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:Ll-2008-promo.png

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Uploaded under GFDL License, however the upload summary says "Photograph by Justine Ungaro © 20008; permitted for use only in Wikipedia article". This is incompatible with GFDL. If changed to fair use, will be deleted as this is a living person and is RFU. — Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was changed to GFDL after an explanation why "for wikipedia use only" wasn't sufficient; your complaint was dealt with a month ago. Gimmetrow 07:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As the uploader is not the copyright holder then it really needs an OTRS ticket not just changing it to GFDL. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.